I have had the principles of Noahs flood used by JW's to encourage me to attend meetings recently and this has got me musing about the flood....again.

Depending on what outcome you are after, you could through Noah back at the person and say that any religion that teaches Noah's flood as literal is not the truth and hence you won't be going back. Then go over the endless reasons why it is impossible.

Genesis states that a river flowed from Eden and branched out into four rivers, two of which being the Tigris and the Euphrates.

Good point that there could be no mighty rivers without rain, something I had never thought of before. Further is that the Tigris and Euphrates existed according to Genesis before the flood, and afterward. A global flood, particularly the Watchtower one that completely changed the landscape and pushed Mount Everest 9km high, would have erased these rivers. The fact they remained after the flood shows the flood was just local, or figurative.

What I had a problem with was: if there was a global flood, up to the mountains no less, the weight and destruction of the water (carrying debris and boulders, etc.) would have changed the topography of the land. So, how could the same rivers still exist afterwards?

Pleaseresearch, I thought about rivers being spring fed and while I don't pretend to be a geologist, I can think of a few problems, especially if Genesis is to be taken literally.

The spring would have to have an enormous discharge to feed into and become 4 rivers.

Underground water is finite and without rain cannot replenish (as far as I know). So how many years before it runs out?

Assuming there were mountains before the flood, as Genesis says there was, the euphrates river would have to run uphill if it flowed OUT of eden.

Other scriptures describe the water cycle and specifically mention that rivers continuously flow into the ocean and the ocean doesn't overflow because the water keeps evaporating and is once again returned as rain. Using this biblical reasoning, it would suggest that without evaporation, spring fed rivers would overflow the oceans. An ever expanding ocean would also contradict Job (I think) that discusses the tidal boundaries.

it would suggest that without evaporation, spring fed rivers would overflow the oceans. An ever expanding ocean would also contradict Job (I think) that discusses the tidal boundaries. jjj:

Bravo, Very good reasoning, however, there also could be, and there is. in a limited way a water cycle, where subterranean rivers feed springs that are powered by geothermal effects. On a large scale lakes , oceans, perhaps,- need not overflow, if enough syphoning occurred.

It is important to keep these " deluge delusion" discussions in good physics, avoiding false arguments, like Noah would freeze to death at the altitude of Everest, when in fact Everest would be at sea level + heat from the waterfall energy release.